Delhi High Court

93,075 judgments

Year:

Parma Nand Yadav & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

31 Dec 2003 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani · 2015:DHC:1422-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Delhi High Court held that candidates delayed in joining due to administrative lapses are entitled to seniority and pension benefits based on their merit position, not date of joining.

administrative petition_allowed Significant seniority review medical examination Staff Selection Commission pension scheme

Through: v. Through:

03 Dec 2003 · S. Muralidhar; I. S. Mehta · 2019:DHC:7802-DB

The Delhi High Court held that candidates whose delay in joining police training was due to their own circumstances are not entitled to the Old Pension Scheme benefits extended to those delayed by administrative lapses.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Old Pension Scheme Central Police Organization delay in joining training administrative delay

Indian Navigation Co. v. Works Thr Engineering Workers Lal Jhanda Union

25 Nov 2003 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2015:DHC:6353-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside an Industrial Tribunal award granting increments without considering the employer's financial capacity and prevailing wages, remanding the matter for fresh adjudication.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Industrial Tribunal annual increment minimum wages financial capacity

Amita Vashisht v. Tarun Vedi

22 Nov 2003 · C. Hari Shankar · 2022:DHC:3718

The Delhi High Court held that Section 10 CPC does not mandate a stay of trial where the suits differ in parties, cause of action, subject matter, and relief, dismissing the petitioner's application to stay possession proceedings pending a declaratory suit.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Section 10 CPC stay of suit identity of parties cause of action

Grand Vasant Residents Wel.Ass v. DDA & Ors.

15 Sep 2003 · Pradeep Nandrajog; V. Kameswar Rao · 2014:DHC:1197-DB

The Delhi High Court held that the Delhi Development Authority must comply with statutory procedures and preserve park land use as per approved plans, drawing adverse inferences for evasive pleadings and allowing the appeal to protect residents' rights.

property appeal_allowed Significant Delhi Development Authority Delhi Development Act, 1957 Master Plan Zonal Development Plan

Dy. Commissioner of Police v. Suman Teotia

09 Sep 2003 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:375-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal's order allowing a widow's claim for family pension and quashing disciplinary proceedings against her deceased husband, rejecting delay and locus standi objections.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant locus standi delay and laches family pension disciplinary proceedings

J.C. Thind v. UOI & Ors.

02 Sep 2003 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani · 2015:DHC:1158-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court upheld the sealed cover procedure for promotions during pending disciplinary proceedings and ruled that penalties take effect from the date of imposition, dismissing the petitioner's challenge.

service_law petition_dismissed Significant Departmental Promotion Committee sealed cover procedure charge memorandum disciplinary proceedings

S. Shankar v. M/S. Rama Panels Pvt. Ltd.

22 Aug 2003 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2014:DHC:3755

The Delhi High Court held that a second suit claiming mesne profits and damages for the same period as an earlier suit is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC and dismissed the subsequent suit alleging misuse of leased premises.

civil appeal_allowed Significant mesne profits leave and license agreement penal clause Order 2 Rule 2 CPC

S. Shankar v. M/s. Rama Panels Pvt. Ltd.

22 Aug 2003 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2014:DHC:3756-DB

The Delhi High Court held that a second suit claiming mesne profits and damages for the same period of unauthorized occupation is barred without leave under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC and upheld the enforceability of a penal license fee clause as a reasonable pre-estimate of loss.

civil appeal_allowed Significant mesne profits leave and license agreement Order 2 Rule 2 CPC penal clause

Jishan Ali v. State

25 Jul 2003 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:2809-DB

The Delhi High Court modified a murder conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-II IPC based on credible eyewitness testimony and absence of intent to kill.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant eyewitness testimony Section 302 IPC Section 304 Part-II IPC culpable homicide

DTC v. Manjeet Singh

21 Jul 2003 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2015:DHC:7122-DB

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal of DTC, setting aside the Labour Court's award and reinstating the dismissal of an employee for proven misconduct despite procedural objections.

labor appeal_allowed Significant disciplinary inquiry misconduct dismissal from service Industrial Disputes Act

Air Force Golden Jubilee Institute v. Rajesh Kumar Ravi

17 Jul 2003 · C. Hari Shankar; Anoop Kumar Mendiratta · 2024:DHC:9298-DB

The Delhi High Court held that mandatory procedural lapses in disciplinary proceedings under Rule 120 of the Delhi School Education Rules vitiate dismissal, ordering reinstatement while remanding the issue of back wages for fresh consideration.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant disciplinary proceedings natural justice Delhi School Education Rules 1973 Rule 120

Goutam Bhadra v. Gouri Bhadra

21 Jun 2003 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Deepa Sharma · 2014:DHC:1666-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming equal partition rights of widow, son, and daughter in a Hindu intestate estate, holding that vague family settlement and oral declaration pleas are insufficient defenses post deletion of Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Hindu Succession Act, 1956 Section 23 deletion family settlement oral Will

Jitendra Nath Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

19 Jun 2003 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani · 2015:DHC:984-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the lawful dismissal of a BSF constable absent without leave for 348 days, holding that no inquiry is required if the show cause notice is unanswered.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant BSF Act 1968 Section 11(2) dismissal from service show cause notice

New Delhi Municipal Council v. Kanwal Sibal & Ors.

11 Mar 2003 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2015:DHC:6695-DB

The Delhi High Court held that co-owners of different floors on a single plot can independently utilize their proportionate increased FAR without requiring joint consent, dismissing NDMC's appeal against such recognition.

property appeal_dismissed Significant Floor Area Ratio MPD-2021 ownership in severalty building bye-laws

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-II) v. Federal-Mogul Goetze (India) Limited

07 Mar 2003 · Sanjiv Khanna; Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2013:DHC:7798-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the Commissioner's revisionary powers under Section 263 to correct erroneous assessment orders excluding revaluation reserve withdrawals from book profits and failing to disallow expenditure under Section 14A.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Section 263 Income Tax Act Section 115JA book profits Section 14A disallowance revaluation reserve

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-II) v. Goetze (India) Limited

07 Mar 2003 · Sanjiv Khanna; Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2013:DHC:6339-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the Commissioner's revision under Section 263, holding the Assessing Officer's order erroneous and prejudicial for incorrect book profit computation and failure to apply Section 14A, clarifying the scope of revision and book profit adjustments under the Income Tax Act.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Section 263 Income Tax Act Section 115JA book profits Section 14A disallowance revaluation reserve

Raj Kumar Sharma v. Union of India and Anr

11 Feb 2003 · Vibhu Bakhru · 2018:DHC:6337
Cites 0 · Cited by 4

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking allotment of an adjacent plot, holding that the plot does not qualify as an additional strip of land under relevant policies and the petitioner is not entitled to relief as a substituted allottee.

property petition_dismissed Significant Article 226 Constitution of India mandamus allotment of land additional strips of land

ARUN OSWAL v. M/S. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

06 Feb 2003 · V. KAMESWAR RAO · 2015:DHC:9342

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking pension benefits under SVRS 2003, holding that the petitioner was not entitled to pension without completing 20 years of service as per valid administrative instructions, and that the Supreme Court judgment on SVRS 2004 was not applicable.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme Pension eligibility Delay and laches Administrative instructions

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi –IV v. Shiv Raj Gupta

28 Jan 2003 · Sanjiv Khanna; V. Kameswar Rao · 2014:DHC:7310-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision that a Rs. 6.6 crore non-compete fee received by the assessee was a capital receipt not taxable under Section 28(ii) of the Income Tax Act, rejecting Revenue's claim of a colourable device to avoid tax.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant non-compete fee capital receipt Section 28(ii) Income Tax Act restrictive covenant